“I’m one person who will not vote for a Mormon,” Al Michaud of Dover shouted at Romney when the former Massachusetts governor approached him inside Harvey’s Bakery. Romney was kicking off the second of two day’s worth of campaign visits in the lead primary state.

Romney kept smiling as he asked, “Can I shake your hand anyway?”

Michaud replied, “No.”

You can read the article here and some analysis (with links to additional assessments) here.

Dan, apparently we are not in bed with these people, at least not in this instance. The linked article shows that a reporter followed up and found out the manâ€™s name and political affiliation:

Michaud later told reporters he was not â€œa right-winger,â€ alluding to some evangelical Christians who have compared Romneyâ€™s faith to a cult. Instead, Michaud stated he was â€œa liberal.â€ He said he planned to vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

If you read the other linked article, at least one writer speculates that itâ€™s liberal prejudice against Mormons that will drive many evangelicals to support Romney.

And look for religion-friendly conservatives to close ranks behind Romney when they see where the bigoted attacks are coming from.

John Scherer, I think it’s news because there have been so many news articles about polls that show a high percentage of Americans will refuse to vote for a Mormon candidate. In this case, we can assign a name to one of them. So it’s interesting from that standpoint.

By the way John – I didn’t know about your family blog. It looks great.

In A Mormon In The White House I pointed out that most of the high profile attacks on Mitt Romney’s faith have come from the left from such folks as the anti-Mormon bigot Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate. Since then Weisberg’s been joined by others including Al Sharpton, but still the MSM continues to push the line that the anti-Mormon vote will come from the right, where the truth remains much more complicated.

I think this interaction may be news simply because at least some high-profile bloggers have chosen to give it attention.

I agree that this story is interesting from our perspective The national media coverage is what puzzles me. The local news broadcast last night showed a video of the event. Mr. Michaud reminds me of every grumpy old man Iâ€™ve ever met. The fact that he wouldnâ€™t even shake Romneyâ€™s hand solidifies his insignificance.

Fascinating that it is painted like an attack from the left – perhaps his poll numbers are scaring them or his electability across the wide swath of America? Of course, I don’t think either of these is really that relevant. Possibly just liberal bigotry…

John, I loved your family blog! What darling little boys! That’s why I always go on the adventures of Nils, little kids just make me smile. Thanks, Daniel, for mentioning it, because I don’t notice those things and miss so much good stuff.

That guy probably did Mitt more good than harm because people will get mad at the obvious ignorance.

However, I believe that Mitt has a bigger problem that will become apparent as time passes. I think he’s awkward, not genuine, sort of fake in his communication skills. I think that was part of his dad’s problem. And I see him seriously mis-stepping. Barak Obama is much more natural and personable.

That doesn’t mean he’s the better man, but people will be drawn to him more.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t read the article (I did see it this morning on the Today show—Matt Lauer was interviewing Mr. Romney). My inclination to connect that man to Christian conservatives comes from a similar incident that had occurred to Mr. Romney not too long ago in Florida where a person who identified himself as a evangelical had basically said the same thing, that he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a Mormon. In that incident, the audience replied with boos towards the individual.

As to why a liberal would not vote for a Mormon, well, it comes down to so many Mormons tying their religion to the Republican party. Most liberals that I know of don’t really care what you believe when it comes to religion. But if you start to press your religion upon them, especially through politics, they get pretty angry. I’m sure this old codger, if he knew that Senator Reid was Mormon would start to rethink his position about Mormons. Would that more Mormons get away from the corrupt and more and more delusional Republicans.

It’s Christmas at the Romneys and Al Michaud is Santa Claus. Like Al Sharpton before him. It’s called a campaign, and they’re called useful idiots. It was covered widely because, well, that’s what a media-savvy candidate does with a war chest these days.

Personally, I don’t understand the conservative christians, I don’t agree with them on many, many issues but I don’t like myself when I just write someone off because I disagree with them. Instead, I try to figure out why they think the way I do, treat those I disagree with with respect, and I find I’m a lot happier.

Oh sure, there’s issues I’m just as passionate as you are about torture, but I don’t think anger to be angry is a means-all. I’m not monomaniacal for one issue, and I don’t understand those that do, but it happens a lot and I try to understand. I don’t think in absolutes or in black and white, and I think that may be where I part ways with some.

I think there’s a lot to learn about conservative christians. Like them or not, they are here to stay and will continue to shape politics for the next 50 years or so. Because of that, I can’t write them off if I claim to be enough sort of student of the US govt and current affairs.

Most liberals that I know of donâ€™t really care what you believe when it comes to religion. But if you start to press your religion upon them, especially through politics, they get pretty angry.

Funny, I think many Conservative Christians feel the same exact way as Liberals do in this regard. They do not want “commie Liberal pigs” telling them how to live their lives, religion etc.

As far as Mitt goes, I might’ve voted for him if he kept the same point on issues he did 10 years ago. Not to mention all the other stuff, right now I’m getting big whiffs of the current chief executive and its scaring me off.

Sherpa,
I think that it is pretty obvious that almost all of us would prefer a president who would do what we would do at our finest. That would tend to be someone who helps the good guys, beats back the bad guys, and balances the checkbook. No-one wants a corrupt politician anymore (Clinton cured us). As regards an idealist, only so long as his ideals match ours.

I think thereâ€™s a lot to learn about conservative christians. Like them or not, they are here to stay and will continue to shape politics for the next 50 years or so.

I know. Sad isn’t it? I was just thinking about something akin to this. Neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Fred Kagan, and the rest of the delusional lot are still rather young, most in their mid to late 40s. They are hardened in their positions. Even a magnificent failure as Iraq won’t change their perception; to do so would undermine what they’ve lived for for so long. So sad that we have to live with these kinds of people for still several decades longer.

I actually was going to put the word pragmatist v. idealist but thought that was too much of a give-away.

HP– I used to work for a corrupt politician. He’ll be sentenced either in June or July.

Dan–Mickey Mouse is maybe the best example of an idealist in the cartoon world.

Dan #23–Yup, their absolutism is what turns me off. But at the same time, you see a lot of people who are hardline on their positions on both sides of the parties…..and its creeping closer to the middle of the parties every year.

Dan # 27 wrote I see a fictional character having more abilities to lead this country than all of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates.

It is pretty hard to make the case that Mitt Romney doesn’t have the abilities to lead the country. Romney has proven himself to be a competent, creative, and able executive in every task he has undertaken. Disagreeing with his view on abortion is one thing; stating that Mickey Mouse is more competent than he is is puzzling.

I could lead the country. You could too. Heck, if George Bush can “lead” the country for six and a half years now, ANYBODY can.

But when you hear a candidate state that he would like to see Guantanamo’s Camp X-ray doubled in size, you really have to question just what kind of leader that candidate is portraying himself to be. Certainly not one that understands the real world around him. Maybe conservatives just don’t realize how terribly detrimental our torture policies are. Conservatives applauded Romney’s Gitmo comment. Unfortunately, that is a blight upon our fine nation, a cancer that is destroying us, and we’re not even realizing how badly it is destroying us.

Agree with #36. Dan’s blog is like a hate filled anti-mormon site. Why don’t you go about promoting your ideals rather than constantly being on the attack. I am in no way defending Bush but it is very easy to criticize, it is much more difficult to acutally present creative ideas.

Dan, I am talking about his ability as an executive. You entirely discount his competence over a simple statement far too easily. I find it puzzling that a statement about doubling Guantanamo negates the amazing successes he had created in his numerous roles as an executive.

On the Guantanamo statement, I wonder if that actually meant something like we should be seeing more terrorists behind bars.

Dan, I am talking about his ability as an executive. You entirely discount his competence over a simple statement far too easily. I find it puzzling that a statement about doubling Guantanamo negates the amazing successes he had created in his numerous roles as an executive.

Being a good executive does not make one a good president. I thought George W. Bush proved that, seeing that he’s the first and to this point only business executive to be president. And yes, his statements regarding Guantanamo Bay are highly important. At least, to people who don’t shift their standards for the votes of some constituents.

Notice that I said “like”. Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I wasn’t implying that your website is anti-mormon, but that it was “like” an anti-mormon site, in that it seems to be rife with nothing but hate. We understand that you are a democrat(which is a good thing). Why don’t you promote an agenda rather then doing nothing but attacking other people.

oh you had to go and get technical on me. well yeah, obviously since I’m an immigrant, having not been born in the United States, I cannot be president. But I have the capabilities to be one, that’s what I’m sayin. :)

il_slinky,

I actually do promote an agenda. But you’re right, at times I let my passion over how bad things are to get the best of me, and I say it like I feel it.

Dan, it looks like you are comparing George W. Bush’s pre-president record as an executive to Mitt Romney’s. I am not sure that Bush compares favorably. Mitt Romney has a record of creating amazing success stories where he has filled the role of executive.

It might be more effective to argue against Romney because you disagree with his view on abortion or Guantanamo and not on the grounds that he is an incompetent executive.

I haven’t argued that Mitt Romney is an incompetent executive. In fact, I never brought up anything about Romney’s executive credentials. You did. I stayed with the points I felt would undermine Romney, and that is his comments about Guantanamo. I also don’t really care about his abortion positions. I never brought them up, so I don’t know why you keep repeating that I have some concern about his abortion positions.

You said a cartoon character is more competent than any Republican candidate, which includes Romney. Incompetence is not a charge that can accurately be brought against Mitt Romney.

As for abortion, it is one of the key divisive issues between Republicans and Democrats. That is why I used it as an example. As a Democrat, you can make a reasoned argument against Romney’s pro-life stance based on the issue itself. Given the evidence to the contrary, on the other hand, it is difficult to argue that Romney would not be a competent and successful head of the Executive Branch or that Mickey Mouse would be more competent. An argument exists, however, based on the evidence of his career, that Mitt Romney is the most competent to fill an executive role of any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat.

I look at Romney’s ridiculous comments about French marriages being seven year contracts. He lived in France, for Pete’s sake! (He really must have had a bad mission to deride that country so much). I look at his ridiculous comments about Guantanamo Bay. I look at his ridiculous comments about Massachusetts, the state he resides in, and I wonder, does this man even know what the heck he is talking about?

Men may excel in business, but that does not make them smart, capable and competent political leaders.

Success managing huge organizations, institutions, and political entities indicates competence in the executive role, including when that executive role is President of the United States. Political rhetoric during an election season does not discount a successful and creative career.

Romney’s statements about France and Guantanamo are unfortunate although not as sinister or depraved as you are depicting. His statements about Mass. aren’t really outrageous coming from a Republican politician speaking to Republican primary voters in an election season.

My personal preference would be to see Romney praising France for its pro-family policies and for the enjoyable life-loving attitude that many French people have. My hope not so much on a political level but just on a policy level is that with the Guantanamo comment he meant that more terrorists should be removed from society where they kill innocent people and not that he was endorsing the Bush Administration’s interrogation techniques.

Honestly, as a Republican and a Massachusettsite, my opinion is that Romney was not a great governor. Massachusetts is a weak-governor state. Plus, he presided over a legislature in which the Democrats had a veto-proof minority. He was basically a ceremonial head-of-state. But, hey, he says the right things and he looks just great.

I wrote a blog post some months ago (on my private blog) comparing a Romney speech with an Obama speech – saying I thought Obama spoke well and Romney not so well. I think I also wrote at the time that we had little to gain or lose from Romney being in office.

I’ve since re-thought that last part – I think we have a lot to gain or perhaps a lot to lose, with Romney in office. It’s a huge opportunity, in many ways, for “one of our own” to demonstrate that a Mormon can be a capable leader, a good person, intelligent … at the same time, there is the very real potential risk that a majority or sizable minority of the country’s population (or even the world’s population) could come to dislike a Mormon president – for a variety of reasons.

So I take back my idea that we have little to gain or lose if Romney runs well or even wins the election. There is a lot going on here and we may not be able to foresee many of the potential implications – good or bad.

I really think it’s a big mistake to think that Mormons have little to gain or lose from Romney running. People are taking him quite seriously and because his “Mormonness” is a major focus for so many media figures and pundits, they are asking a lot of questions – about him, about Mormon beliefs, about what we promise in the temple, etc. and etc. and etc.

I think it’s a very big deal – maybe in some ways bigger than the Olympics being hosted in Salt Lake City.

I have to wonder how many conversations “around the water-cooler” so to speak, are taking place because of a Mormon candidate and how many opportunities that is creating for Mormons to share their beliefs, thoughts, etc.

Just yesterday my wife told me about a work conversation she had on the subject of Romney, polygamy, etc.

Nick, one reason might be that a successful run by Romney would be evidence to Latter-day Saints that their religion is not a bar to attaining the highest goals they can set for themselves professionally.

Nick, it may be a mix of good and bad – I don’t know whether there would be a preponderance of good or a preponderance of bad – but being optimistic – I see it as an opportunity more than I see it as a threat.

I don’t think a realistic person can deny that it the campaign itself (whether or not he wins), since Romney is taken seriously as a candidate, means there is far more attention on both the national and international stage – in regards to Mormonism.

How many articles, in regards to Romney, have we already seen, that had the word “Mormon” in the title? How many more like that will be written?

Maybe if he becomes president, European countries like Belgium will remove The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from its cult list. Or maybe they’ll just use the fact that he’s Mormon as another reason to hate American liberalism.

Also – we have to remember as well that the U.S. campaign is not just on the national stage, but to at least some degree (arguably, a great degree) on the international stage.

If you think about it, some people in other countries may be reading the front-page of the newspaper – just reading about current events or whatever – and because of Romney they may read the word “Mormon” or “Mormonism” – a topic that they could very well possibly have never heard of before. The typical response to that kind of thing is to wonder about something and to want to know more.

What that means to me is that some people might become curious (as people are inclined to be) and they may ask more questions. With the internet being what it is, information and answers are more available than ever. These days, a person in just about any country, I suppose, could find the official church website and request a free Book of Mormon.

Again, I don’t think from a spiritual, temporal, public relations or whatever perspective – that you can really argue that this has zero/zilch influence. It’s actually a very big deal.

As far as the original post, I’ve long argued that bigotry and prejudice against Romney is just as much, if not more, likely to come from John Krakauer-style leftists than evangelical right-wingers.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s no love lost between me and the Christian Right. I think it’s an incredibly dumb political movement. I think its adherents often verge on idolatry, and I remain worried that they’ll be coming after us the moment they’ve finished with homosexuals.

But I don’t think that they have much real political motive to oppose Romney. Whereas the Left has a LOT of political motive to oppose him.

I have to wonder how many conversations â€œaround the water-coolerâ€ so to speak, are taking place because of a Mormon candidate and how many opportunities that is creating for Mormons to share their beliefs, thoughts, etc.

My coworkers haven’t talked about him, though we have talked politics, and they know I’m a Mormon. I live in the backwoods of northeast PA though, not a key primary state, so Romney doesn’t pay this area a visit at all.

Right, but the Left doesn’t oppose him because of his religion, except to the extent that he ties his religion to his politics. The Left has a lot of political motives to oppose all Republican candidates that tie themselves to the religious Right.

Dan, I think you’re giving liberals waay too much credit. I know the stereotype is that liberals are whiny smart people and conservatives are dumb hicks, but I’ve met plenty of liberals who were dumb as a bag of rocks too.

And explain to me how opposing a Mormon candidate because “them lousy Mormons is all narrow-minded conservative throwbacks” is supposedly superior to opposing a Mormon candidate because “them lousy Mormons ain’t God-fearin’ Christian folk.”

I see no practical difference.

And I’ve been on plenty of liberal discussion forums where these allegedly open-minded liberals mercilessly mock Mormons for wearing “funny underwear,” call Joseph Smith “an obvious fraud” and proclaim all Mormons to be brainwashed retards for believing all that $#%& that Smith was talking about.

I think you’re essentially talking about a distinction without a difference. Leftists are every bit as bigoted as Rightists at far as I’m concerned.

The only difference is the Rightists are largely keeping quiet about Romney, while the Leftists have been both vocal and vitriolic.

Dan, I’m registering as a Democrat this year and I have no intention of giving the GOP another chance. I pretty-much agree with your stance on torture. But your comments are often waay too blindly partisan for me.

Yes, actually. They’ve been a dismal failure at pushing back against the warmongering Republicans. They won last November based solely on Iraq. The people want out. But the Democrats in Congress are sniveling cowards who cower at a threat from Rove to call them defeatocrats! What a bunch of pansies!

Unfortunately, they’re the best we’ve got to do real damage to Republicans who have abrogated their Constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive branch in check. There is a lot of mess to clean up.

Romney is savvy and scripted. Sometimes that’s a plus and sometimes it’s a minus. I like to see evidence of spontaneity, self-confidence, sincerity, personal values – these days campaigns are so highly-funded and carefully plotted out that it’s hard to tell what we are actually seeing. I think in some ways that is very detrimental. But it may be unavoidable, to a great extent.

I’ve brought this up before, but I’ll never forget attending a George Bush (the first one) event at Brigham Young University (during his campaign) and being hugely disappointed. Here was a man who had been a pilot in WWII, a diplomat to China, the head of the CIA, etc. and etc., and instead of teaching us anything or sharing any personal wisdom he had gained over time, he served us up political twinkies that were calculated to please the local audience. It was a total joke and for some reason the audience was cheering the whole time. It felt like I was at an early Beatles rock concert with a couple of thousand brainless 14-year-old girls (not a good thing, at all).

Politics really interests me – but the process can be quite a disappointment sometimes.

I saw NPR’s senior news correspondent Daniel Shore speaking at a televised symposium once. He remarked how TV has changed America and especially American politics. How politics is no longer about reality as much as it is about the perception of reality.

He gave a few stories about politicians with frank speech and strong personalities such as Kruschev, and Nixon. The sort of politicians you just don’t see anymore.

Politics has been largely whitewashed in today’s environment. Politicians, sports figures, church leaders… All of them, when in front of a camera, will devote the entire interview to speaking without really saying anything.

Frank speech isnâ€™t always a plus – we do have our frank speech politicians or personalities who essentially reveal the jerks they are. I think of Jimmy Carter in politics or Rosie Oâ€™Donnell in pop culture. While they have their appeal to a certain demographic, they create major problems as well.

Itâ€™s a hard balance to achieve. Some people pull it off much better than others.

Marlin K. Jensen was so perfect in the Mormons documentary – I donâ€™t know if he was being natural, scripted, practiced or just himself – but it was incredible to watch him. You could feel his goodness and genuineness and sincerity. That was the way it came across to me.

I think of Ronald Reagan, who is often referred to as â€œthe Great Communicator.â€ But Iâ€™m also aware that he had speech-writers (Peggy Noonan), so itâ€™s hard to tell. But I did feel that when he spoke, he very often was speaking from his own heart and his own mind. I really think his â€œtear down this wallâ€ line was his own. It went against anything political advisors would suggest and yet it was brilliant. Pure and brilliant. He had many other occasions, I feel, to demonstrate this quality.

To some extent, I feel, Bill Clinton has a gift for this. Iâ€™ve heard it said that a person could dislike Clinton intensely, but that when Clinton showed up and shook that personâ€™s hand, the person would be bowled over and impressed by him. He exudes a quality that makes you like him.

Maybe itâ€™s just that hard-to-define quality we call charisma. I donâ€™t think you can teach charisma. A lot of people do say that Romney is handsome, appealing, good-looking, whatever you call it. I donâ€™t know if thatâ€™s charisma or not. Heâ€™s also been called a flip-flopper. He doesnâ€™t always strike me as genuine or interested in people. In my book, thatâ€™s a problem.

Ronald Reagan was a professional actor, the kind of person who is scripted. He naturally fit in to the modern media president.

Bill Clinton had the natural ability that few have in politics.

Mitt Romney does not have Bill Clinton’s natural ability, or Ronald Reagan’s trained ability. What Mitt Romney should do is be himself, which at this point, he is not attempting to do. Let the cards fall where they may, but be yourself, Mr. Romney.

Dan, I think what you are saying about Ronald Reagan being an actor has some significance – he did have professional experience in the area, no question about that. However, I am guessing that the majority of actors, put in his position, wouldn’t be as effective. He was unique for that role, I think. No pun intended.

Ronald Reagan employed his professional skills as an actor to portray his political beliefs on television in a way that would attract an audience. You are definitely right that something like this cannot just happen with any actor; they do need that motivation and skill in politics that many actors just don’t have. Arnold Schwartzenegger is showing that he has that skill. He’s been doing some pretty good things for California from what I’ve been seeing. Ronald Reagan believed in the things he was saying, so it made it easy. A lot of actors who speak out politically also believe in what they are saying, but they aren’t going into politics itself; they don’t go get elected. Reagan, Schwartzeneger, Thompson, and a few others, did something about what they believed in. That’s, I think the biggest difference between someone like Reagan and someone like Streisand.

Dan, sometimes I feel like we are arguing even when I think we basically agree. I wrote a semi-lengthy response to your last comment, then re-read your comment, and decided to scratch the previous response. I don’t think we really disagree much in regards to what we are saying about Reagan – though I suppose I like Reagan more, maybe much more, than you do.

Iâ€™ve brought this up before, but Iâ€™ll never forget attending a George Bush (the first one) event at Brigham Young University (during his campaign) and being hugely disappointed. Here was a man who had been a pilot in WWII, a diplomat to China, the head of the CIA, etc. and etc., and instead of teaching us anything or sharing any personal wisdom he had gained over time, he served us up political twinkies that were calculated to please the local audience. It was a total joke and for some reason the audience was cheering the whole time. It felt like I was at an early Beatles rock concert with a couple of thousand brainless 14-year-old girls (not a good thing, at all).
For some reason? He was a Republican in the center of Utah Republicans. He could have told naughty limericks and the audience would have sobbed with blind worship. The way many Utah County Mormon residents treat Republicans in office is as sickening as the way granola crunchers in Oregon treat a Libertarian politician.

Does Mitt Romney represent what you want the world to think of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? When I heard him recently explain his position on torture, my answer quickly became a resounding no.

I imagine the reason many showed up was because they were Republicans – but that doesn’t really explain to me why they don’t sit down, sober up and use their brains. It seems that if you congregate a lot of people in a stadium seating atmosphere and they are listening to a celebrity, they can’t help but start screaming, shouting and applauding. I’ve seen this at popular music concerts as well. You’d think people went to listen to music but instead they just want to make a lot of noise themselves.